Thursday, July 26, 2012

By Bill Maher

It's summer, when a young man's fancy
turns to wildfires. According to the National Interagency Fire Center,
we currently have 52 large fires burning in 14 states. Colorado, in
particular, is on fire. Hundreds of thousands of acres have been
consumed, thousands of firefighters have been deployed and hundreds of
homes have been burnt to the ground.

Likewise, things are predicted to heat
up here in Southern California. A new study of the effects of climate
change on global fire patterns finds Southern California is "headed into
a more fire-prone future" and West Hollywood can expect to become even
more flaming than it is now.

The study, led by UC Berkeley
scientists, says that by the end of the century, the world will see more
frequent and more severe wildfires than we see now, including fires in
the tundra and the forests of the Far North. "Tundra fires": shouldn't
that phrase alone make you say, "Hmm, maybe there is something
to this global warming"? I'm not saying we're in for even more extreme
weather, but they say Adele really will be able to "set fire to the
rain."

Of course Republicans will dismiss this as bunk because, after all, these are "Berkeley" scientists and they used "16 different global climate models" to
gather "global wildfire and climate data for roughly the last decade
and examined climate variables that affect fuel availability." And, if that doesn't spell "liberal hoax," I don't know what does.

By not effectively regulating
polluters or funding green technology now, Republicans are ensuring a
future of more expense, and possibly even our ultimate demise. Isn't
that some serious stuff to be politically toying with -- the survival of
Man?

It's time we realized "the adults in
the room" aren't the ones living for the immediate gratification of
"right now," with no regard for long-term consequences.

By Bill Maher

Someone pointed out that the problem with Obama’s press conference gaffe earlier this month –

"The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government."– was that Obama didn't have anything else to say in the press conference. If he had made any actual news, the gaffe wouldn’t have been the only thing people had to talk about. And I think that's a fair charge.

Anyway, gaffe outrage is how we play
the game. And since Mitt Romney hired Sarah Palin's speechwriter, that's
the only game in town. Or at least the favorite game. You say
something, I repeat it, over and over and over and over and over, like
it's so obviously fucking comically ludicrous that it doesn't even have
to be explained.

Can you believe it? Obama actually
said we're a super power "whether we like it or not!" Whether we like it
or not??! "Whether" we "like it" or "not"!!!???!!! WHETHER we LIKE IT
or NOT???!!!!!!!!?????????

Which is why it was inevitable that Mitt Romney's campaign released a web video all about Obama saying "doing fine." Here's The Hill's description:The video ad follows Obama's remarks with clips of workers discussing their struggles with the weak economy.

"We've seen layoffs, cutbacks," says one woman.

"I've been looking for a job for two years haven't found any," says another.

"I had to file my own personal bankruptcy and had to close my business," says a man.

The video closes by repeating
clips of Obama's quote, before an on-screen graphic reading, "No, Mr.
President, we are not 'doing fine.'"

Meow! But isn't there a less stupid way to play this game?

Woody Allen once wrote an essay called
"Miscellaneous Methods of Civil Disobedience" and one of them was
"Standing in front of City Hall and chanting the word "pudding" until
one’s demands are met." Woody wasn't wrong by much. But the trick is to
wait until your enemy accidentally says "pudding" first.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Earlier this month, The New YorkTimes had a fawning profile
of Paul Singer, a 67-year-old conservative billionaire who has spent
$10 million on gay rights and gay marriage initiatives. He's also a big
Romney supporter. So I'm reading this and I'm wondering, "why is this
guy for gay marriage?"

The article doesn't give me a clue
until the ninth paragraph, when we find out that he's got a gay son.
Yes, once again we have a conservative who has become enlightened
because of a family member. Well, good for him. Yet at the same time
he's raising a ton of money for a candidate who supports a
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. So I guess the message
this guy is sending to his gay son is, "I love you, but not as much as
I'd love a reduction in the capital gains tax."

Providence means the invisible guiding hand of God, so I'm always
sad to see things skidding wildly into shit creek in a place called
Providence. But that's exactly what happened this year to Providence,
Rhode Island, population 178,000. You could fit the entire population
of Providence inside two LA Coliseums and have 9,000 extra seats. It's
not exactly Tokyo. So the townsfolk were surprised when their unions
told them they owed them $901 million for their pensions.

And no, I'm not just blaming the unions. They're the nicest bunch of
no-necks you'd ever like to meet. There are other problems with the
system. Retirees living longer, for instance, and the pension funds
losing money in the market.

But unemployment in Rhode Island is 11%. It's a beleaguered little Chow-Chow of a state.

And Providence was going bankrupt. So last month -- in cooperation
with the unions -- they reformed the pension system. You can do this
stuff, if both sides agree not to be assholes. One of the things they
did was get rid of the 5 percent and 6 percent annual increases given
to about 600 former firefighters and police. Another was to cap future
pensions at 1.5 times the state's median annual household income, or
about $82,000. Which doesn't sound like any robber barons are kicking
the stool out from under the workingman, but that's just me.

There are two dozen city retirees collecting more than $100,000 a
year in Providence. Which is nice for them, but hard on a tiny city of
people who aren't evil or greedy or anything. Really. I've been there.

The poster child for the problem with the Providence pension system
is former fire chief Gilbert McLaughlin. And I know this is anecdotal,
but that's really just another word for "fact you don’t like."
McLaughlin retired in 1991, age 55, making $63,510 a year. His
contract entitled him to a 6% cost of living increase every year. So
this year, for not being fire chief, he made $196,813. If
McLaughlin lives to be 100 -- and why not, it's not like he's fighting
fires -- he would've earned $700,000 a year under the old system.

Something had to give. So Providence -- and the whole state,
governed by our old pal Linc Chafee, neither greedy nor evil, nor out
to destroy the middle class -- are suspending cost of living increases,
and capping benefits.

I think we need unions. But when people hear about the retired
fireman whose pay doubles every twelve years, you can see how they
might not like it.